If we say 20 not fixed to 20 could dollars not be

This preview shows page 18 - 21 out of 38 pages.

If we say 20 not fixed to 20, could dollars not be fixed to us dollars but monopoloy dollars? d. Intra-textual comparison i. Would this reading of 7 th make sense if applied to 2 nd amendment?
Class 5: Race and US Law - Gavin Case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - Justice Brown Parties Π - Plessy (petitioner) Δ - Ferguson (respondent, Trial Court Judge) Facts P is 7/8 white and 1/8 black. P bought a first class rail ticket and boarded a "whites only" railcar. When asked to leave, P refused, and was arrested for violating LA's law. Law @ Issue LA - "...No person or persons, shall be admitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them on account of the race they belong to." Issue Does LA's law of "separate but equal" treatment based on race violate the 14 th Amendment? Rule The "separate but equal" doctrine does not violate the 14 th Amendment. (Later overturned by Brown ) Analysis · 14 th A's purpose to enforce equality of the races before the law but not intended to abolish distinctions based on race · Laws requiring separation of the races do not imply blacks are inferior to whites · Court supports decision with examples of segregated schools and laws forbidding interracial marriage · No deprivation of property, but Court suggests if a white man was assigned to a colored coach, he may have a claim · Every exercise of state police power must be reasonable. Court looks to established usages, customs, and traditions of the people · "Assumption that the enforced separation of the 2 races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so...because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." Conclusion Conviction Affirmed. LA law is not unconstitutional. Dissent (Harlan) · 13 th - 15 th Amendments removed race from government - "the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white...shall stand equal before the laws of the States...no discrimination shall be made against them (the blacks) by law because of their color" · Constitution is color-blind (except to the Chinese apparently) · Present decision will stimulate aggressions and encourage belief that the purposes of the 13 th - 15 th Amendments can be abridged se Korematsu v. US (1944) Black Parties Π - United States Δ - Korematsu (petitioner) Facts D is a US citizen of Japanese descent who was convicted for violating a
Military Order. D never left the area in question. Law @ Issue Exclusion Order #34 – all people of Japanese descent (citizen or alien) are excluded from remaining in San Leandro, CA ("Military Area"). Order requires 1. Leave the area 2. Report to an assembly center 3. If determined necessary, be detained by the military for an indefinite time Issue Does the Exclusion Order violate the 5 th Amendment? Rule In times of war, the military may impose orders on a targeted class of citizens provided good reason. Analysis · Legal restrictions curtailing the single rights of a single racial group are subject to strict scrutiny · Court upheld earlier challenge to the Exclusion Order when it was made - "Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture